How scared can you get in 30 seconds?

[arbre_rieur]

Half Minute Horrors is a children's horror anthology collecting very, very short stories (vignettes really, often enough) by various of today's children's authors (and a few authors of adult fiction who somehow got mixed in there).



Most of the works are text pieces, but there are some of the art that is sequential variety, too...



By Lane Smith:






(There are some stories done in more standard comic book format too, with word balloons and captions and everything, but I haven't included those.)

I've scanned a few of the text works, as well. The beauty of this anthology is that, due to its format, pretty much any single work in it can be posted in full without violating the community's rules.

Lemony Snicket's piece:





Brad Meltzer's ('cuz of the comics connection):



Neil Gaiman's:





M.T. Anderson's:





Katherine Applegate's (writer of the Animorphs series):



and Joyce Carol Oates's:





Mods, the book's over 130 pages long, so all of this is still well under the page limit.

creator: neil gaiman, creator: brad meltzer, creator: joyce carol oates, genre: horror

Comments

[darklorelei]

The Turn of the Screw one is hilariously fantastic.

[red_cyclone]

I wonder how many kids reading this are going to get it though, I was worryingly well read as a child and I wouldn't have. It's awesome though.

[zordboy]

No, I didn't get that one at all. What's so scary about it?

[grazzt]

You'd have to read the book. It's one of the classics of horror fiction. Basically, it's the journal of a governess, related by a third party, as the governess begins encountering ghosts. Of course, she might only be insane, and the story never quite makes this clear. There's significant critical debate on this point.

In Danse Macabre, Stephen King compared it to a gleaming, polished edifice that towers above all other works in the genre. He decided not to say much more about it, because it would require an entire other book to properly study.

[zordboy]

Oh, so that three page comic is the abridged version of a longer novel? That would explain it.

Probably wouldn't do much good, though. I remember when I was a teenager my grandmother bought me a collection of Edgar Allen Poe's best work, and I found most of them fighting-to-stay-awake dull. Anyway.

[crinos]

I had to read that book in school a few times, but it was so boring I never got into it and I ended up just skimming it over.

[sistermagpie]

That was my absolute favorite too. Best sum up of Turn of the Screw ever. I don't think it matters if a kid knows the book well enough to get it.

[glprime]

An Easy Gig made me gag a little. Just a bit.

"Katherine Applegate's (writer of the Animorphs series)[...]"

I think you mean, "Person who penned a few then put her name on the cover while ghostwriters handled the rest." God that pissed me off when I found out years later (I'd already donated my entire collection to the library).

[arbre_rieur]

If by "penned a few," you mean fully wrote the first twenty-four, the last two, all the specials and spin-off, and provided outlines for all the rest... sure.

[glprime]

Yeah, sure... If you can't be bothered to write it beyond the outline (nor share credit with the person who did the rest), you don't need to have your name on the cover.

[arbre_rieur]

It's still not penning only "a few" books by anyone's definition. And I think you're underestimating how established and accepted a practice ghostwriting is.

It wasn't a big secret either. They didn't advertise the fact, but even as a kid, I was able to find out online that the people being thanked in the dedications for "helping to prepare this manuscript" were ghostwriters.

[glprime]

I know how prevalent and "accepted" ghostwriting is in publishing, and as a writer, I don't appreciate its practice.

I've written things and co-written things. I give credit where credit is due, and I make the distinction between "thanks for help editing and researching" and "thanks for sitting down and hassling through scenes, dialogue and character interactions."

Unless a person is literally unable or under-skilled to author something themselves (like many "celebrity" memoirs being ghostwritten from dictations, interviews and journal notes), they don't need their name on the cover as though they're the author.

Beyond being deceptive to the reader, it's unfair in representing the work of the ghostwriters.

It's an unbalanced practice, and I don't care for it.

[arbre_rieur]

Fair enough. I think it's a bit unfair to portray these ghostwriters as wronged parties who've been screwed out of their rightful credit, though, considering that they go into the whole deal knowing full well how it works.

"Unless a person is literally unable or under-skilled to author something themselves (like many "celebrity" memoirs being ghostwritten from dictations, interviews and journal notes), they don't need their name on the cover as though they're the author."

Why make an exception for such individuals? I don't see why the writing talent of the person whose name is on the cover should make a difference. Why does a lack of writing ability on the part of the "perpetrator" make the practice more acceptable?

[glprime]

I guess I find it more understandable to advocate ghostwriting when the person who will be the perceived "author" is in no-way a trained writer, nor would they be expected to be; they're talent/career is in doing something else, and the publishers just want something juicy (but coherent) to cash in on the fame and notoriety of this person. I also don't hold such works to a very high standard (yeah, I'm a snob). Maybe we can throw in that nice "scorpion on the frog's back" parable; that's what little "point" I have here...

I'd hold creative writers to a different standard because... well... all we're supposed to do is script original works. And I currently specialize in screenwriting, which the WGA has extremely strict crediting rules for. If you outlined something and let another writer pen the entire draft, then revised that into a second draft, you couldn't put yourself as the sole writer and add a "story help by..." into the opening credits. The "thanks for the manuscript help" addition is bullshit.

I'll concede ghostwriters acknowledge their lesser part in the process, and there are plenty of examples of ghostwriters using these projects as stepping stones to their own careers.

I'm just mostly talking towards my view on the ethics of such a practice when it comes to fiction literature or works where a literature/academic background would be expected in the main author.

While identity and anonymity can be important for certain socio-political works... a fiction series where the main author starts other projects and needs help to carry the load*? Not a time for ghostwriters.

*Having a new child? Ask J.K. Rowling and many other author/parents if they started using ghostwriters to cover...

[arbre_rieur]

"I'll concede ghostwriters acknowledge their lesser part in the process, and there are plenty of examples of ghostwriters using these projects as stepping stones to their own careers."

Indeed. In Applegate's case, a few of the ghostwriters were people she'd taken in as proteges. And I know at least one of them's gone on to bigger things.

As an aside, this will probably diminish your opinion of her even more: Everyone Animorphs book she wrote has an uncredited co-writer. She co-wrote all her books with her husband. And that goes not just for the Animorphs series but a whole bunch of other stuff credited solely to K.A. Applegate.

[rebecky-mo.livejournal.com]

She...she WHAT? *Googles*

...Alright, where's my Red Ring? GODDAMN IT, I'd had no idea. D< That was my Harry Potter growing up, I had ALL of them.

DAMN IT.

[punishermax]

Jesus Christ Almighty, that babysitter one was fucking DARK for a kid's book!

Ugh...

[roguefankc]

I agree with you.

My eyes actually widened with shock when I got the "lasagna" part. *shivers*

Although "The Legend of Alexandra and Rose" was a good second. I think the fact that they showed Alexandra in multiple places just made me blink. o_0

Re: Ugh...

[zordboy]

I keep thinking about the babysitter one.

And y'know, with a good lawyer, the kid's gonna be fine.

If he babysits often, there'd be plenty of character witnesses that he'd be fine around children. If the parents snapped and killed/cooked their baby, there'd probably be a history of psychotic breaks there (and a competent psychiatric review would probably find them out). There'd be *zero* motive to murder the baby. And a young boy accused of such a heinous crime would be subject to all kinds of psychological studies, most of which would very quickly come to the conclusion that he didn't do it. When you add *that* to the fact they confessed to him what they did, and the whole "nobody will believe you" thing doesn't quite work when you add in all the other little things.

Re: Ugh...

[cmdr_zoom]

Yup. That's the way the adult world works.
But it's not the way a kid's world does.

Re: Ugh...

[zordboy]

I don't know. A kid's world probably works only so far as, "But I really didn't do it." Everything else will spin out from there.

Re: Ugh...

[arbre_rieur]

You'd be hard-pressed to find a kid who hasn't at some point been punished for something s/he didn't do, methinks.

Re: Ugh...

[zordboy]

Stealing some cookies, maybe, not homicide.

And you know, the more I think about it, even a bad lawyer would probably be able to get the kid out of trouble.

Think about the sheer amount of time it must've taken to murder the victim, grind them up, then cook them in a lasagne (depending on the oven, that alone would take an hour) and then eat them.

But the kid's been chatting to his friend Raoul on the phone all night. And those kind of phone records would be easy to verify.

A kid wouldn't necessarily think of *all* those things to prove he didn't do it, but he'd think of some of them.

Sorry Mr and Mrs Kennedy, but that wasn't exactly the perfect murder, now was it?

Re: Ugh...

[karthzon.livejournal.com]

You'd only need to look as far as me. Or my sister. Or most of our cousins. Or our parents.

[vivalana.livejournal.com]

I remember the horror stories I read as a child (written often for children, by children) and they were usually a great deal creepier and to-the-point darker than the ones written by and for adults.

Like the one about a little girl who dressed as a bunny for Easter, couldn't get out of her bunny costume, and was then used to cook bunny stew by her crazy grandpa.

[zordboy]

One at a time...

"The Legend of Alexandria and Rose" took me a couple of seconds to get, but that was kind of clever.

The worm thing was just gross-out stuff, but tame compared to the rest of it.

I didn't get "The Turn of the Screw", and feel like I'm missing something important.

The Lemony Snicket piece -- holy crap on a stick, I'll be sleeping with the lights on tonight o_O.

I don't quite understand "The Shadow", either. That final line is a bit... confusing. I mean, what?

I wonder if "The Goblin Book" works on the internet with scanned pages? Heh.

"An Easy Gig" -- holy shit on an even bigger stick. That's pure nightmare fuel, right there.

And I don't really get "Tiger Kitty", either. Is the implication that it's a different animal, and the narrator doesn't realise it? I don't understand.

[rebecky-mo.livejournal.com]

I loved stuff like this when I was a kid (in fact, I'm sure I had a book like this years ago). Kinda makes me wonder why I dislike horror movies so much nowadays; I guess this stuff is more about getting your imagination going, whereas the movies are all about blood and guts...

BTW, there's a broken link between the 2 pages of "The Turn of the Screw". Is there a page missing? Because I feel I'm missing something with that story.

[arbre_rieur]

The broken link was just a screw-up. The story's only two pages.

[ajremix.livejournal.com]

While I'm not exactly sure how the title fits with the story, The Turn of the Screw is actually very obvious, but very subtle at the same time. Think about it: you're leaving your children to be cared for by someone who either sees ghosts- ghosts that have the potential to be malicious -or you're leaving them to be cared for by someone who THINKS they see ghosts, but nothing is actually there- thus, a crazy person. And no one knows which one she is.

[red_cyclone]

I've always assumed the title was to do with the effect of the situation on the governess, about her slowly going crazy, either way.
I feel bad for not liking the story much, I feel like I should, but I just can't get into James, by the end I didn't really care, this little summary of it was as emotionally charged for me as the original story.

[ajremix.livejournal.com]

I've never read the source material myself though the premise is interesting to me. This little blurb, however, may take a bit more effort to read the meaning behind for some (in this case- me) to really enjoy (be frightened by) what they got out of it.

[bradhanon]

It's possible I'm missing something with the "Tiger Kitty" one.

My reading is that Tiger Kitty is dead, and this other cat (who may have killed the original) has shown up instead. The adults can't tell the difference, because they don't have the kid-narrator's close relationship with the cat--they're just vaguely aware that it looks like the same cat. And the kid doesn't even really care, implying that our narrator is one creepy little SOB.

Or is there something more obvious I'm overlooking?

[vivalana.livejournal.com]

I thought for sure it was a zombie cat, personally. Still don't get the Shadow one, though.

[midnightvoyager]

I'm unnerved for entirely personal reasons.

...see, I have a cat named Tiger. He's grey and striped, but the point stands. He's an outdoor cat who vanished for a few months before coming back. Skinnier, and with an odd little bump in his tail.

x_x

[zordboy]

No, I didn't get that one either. The fact the narrator doesn't care that it's basically a different cat doesn't really say much to me, other than he/she really loved the old cat, or is a bit... dense upstairs.

I keep stopping on the second last sentence. What secret do they share, that Tiger-Kitty scratches people for finding out? I don't understand the implication there at all.

But then I didn't get the Shadow one, either.

[arbre_rieur]

I think the implication is that the new cat is some evil, demon cat or something, and that "scratch" in the last line is supposed to be understatement as only a child could do.

As for "The Shadow," my reading is that the dog retrieved a severed body part or something gruesome along those lines. Which would make the person saying "that's mine" some serial killer or worse.

[pseudo_tsuga]

This is the kind of horror I like.

On another note, the artist who did the summary of The Turn of the Screw does three-panel summaries of classic books for The Chronicle's Sunday books supplement. Most of them are pretty good; you should check them out if you can.